exit_to_main_menu

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does well: it discloses the implicit quick-save side effect, the multiplayer consequence ('ends the game for them too'), and the blocking wait for the main menu. It stops short of stating what happens to unsaved state when save=false, which is the one remaining gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the save/multiplayer caveats, with no wasted words. Dense but each sentence adds a distinct operational fact.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: purpose, side effects, multiplayer etiquette, blocking semantics, and turn-availability. Only the unsaved-state outcome under save=false is unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no description, but the tool description compensates by explaining exactly what save does ('Quick-saves first when it is my turn in a solo game; save=false skips that'), implying the sole effect of the flag.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and destination ('Leave the loaded game for the main menu') and immediately identifies the downstream siblings this enables (load_save / load_latest). An agent can distinguish this from the many load/turn tools without reading the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the alternatives and the condition that selects them ('so load_save / load_latest can open another save'), specifies a when-to-ask-human rule for multiplayer, and states the unusual allowance 'Usable while it is not my turn.' Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.